In Durham, North Carolina, the seat of Duke
University, a gang of largely white males destroyed public property by pulling
down a statue of a Confederate soldier. Perhaps they took their cue from the
neo-Nazis installed in Ukraine by Obama and Hillary following the US-engineered
coup that overthrew the elected democratic government. The first thing the new
Obama-installed neo-Nazi regime did was to pull down all the Soviet war
memorials of the liberation of Ukraine from Nazi Germany. The neo-Nazis who pulled
down the war memorials were the descendants of the Ukrainians who fought for
Nazi Germany. These neo-Nazis comprise the government of the “democracy” that
Obama and Hillary brought to the Ukraine and is the government that the US
government and its European vassals support.
What did the destruction of public property in
Durham achieve, and where were the police?
What the films of the event reveal is a collection
of crazed white people, mainly white men, kicking and spitting at a bronze
statue and jumping back as if the statue were going to strike back. It was a
display of ignorant psychopathic hatred.
Where did this hatred come from and why was it
directed at a statue? To the ignorant gangsters, most likely Duke University
students, the destroyed statue is a symbol of slavery.
This ignorant association between a Confederale
soldier and slavery contradicts all known history. Slavery in the Southern
states was confined to large argicultural tracts known as plantations. Slaves
were the agricultural workforce. This institution long predated the Confederacy
and the United States itself. It was an inherited institution from the time
that the New World was colonized by European economic interests. Slaves were
not a Southern invention. They were brought in long prior to the Declaration of
Independence, because there were resources to be exploited but no work force.
The first slaves were white slaves, but they died
like flies from malaria and yellow fever. Next indigenious Americans
(“Indians”) were used as slaves, but they would not work. Then it was
discovered that some Africans had immunity to malaria and resistance to yellow
fever, and finally a work force was located. The slaves were purchased from the
African tribes that annually conducted warfare between themselves, the booty of
which was slaves. Socialist historians, such as Karl Polanyi, the Jewish
brother of my Jewish Oxford professor, the distinguished physical chemist and
philosopher Michael Polanyi, to whom my first book is dedicated, wrote detailed
and exacting histories of the African slave trade conducted by black Africans.
Confederate soldiers did not own slaves, and as
every honest historian knows, they were not fighting for slavery. They were
fighting, because their country had been invaded.
The Confederacy was not their country any more than
the United States had been. Their country was their state. In those
days people’s loyalty was to their state. They thought of their state as their
country. To their minds, the United States was something like the EU is to the
French, Italians, Dutch, British, etc. The French still think of themselves as
French, not as EU.
Remember, when Robert E. Lee was offered command of
the Union Army, he declined on the grounds that he could not bring war to his
own country, by which he meant Virginia.
Lee’s army was the Army of Northern Virginia.
As President Lincoln said over and over, the war is
not about slavery. It is about “preserving the union,” that is, the empire. If
the South were permitted to separate, it would mean that there would be two
countries competing for the vast lands to the west of the Mississippi River.
The budding empire in Washington did not want any such competition.
If the South were permitted to seperate, the North
would lose its market for its relatively high priced manufactured goods that it
hoped to sell to the South by placing a tariff against the cheaper British
The South figured, correctly, that it would be
doubly hit. Higher prices from the North and retaliatory tariffs from the
British on its cotton exports.
This economic conflict between the North and South
went on for a long time before it provoked secession. The left-wing American
Historian, Charles Beard, explains the so-called “Civil War” in the economic
terms that provoked it. It had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery.
The very designation, “Civil War,” is a lie.A civil
war is when two sides fight for control of the government. The South was not
fighting for control of the US government. It was fighting, because the North
Lincoln did not free the slaves. Moreover, had
Lincoln not been assassinated, his plan was to send the blacks, whom he
regarded as inferior to whites, back to Africa. This is not a “conspiracy
theory.” It is the documented fact. It is totally impossible to refute this
The Emancipation Proclamation was propaganda. It had
two purposes: one was to shut up the abolitionists. The other was to promote a
slave rebellion in the Southern states that would draw Confederate troops out
of the front lines to protect the women and children at home. As Lincoln’s own
Secretary of State, William H. Seward, said, we have freed the slaves where we
have no jurisdiction and left them in slavery where we have jurisdiction.
Seward’s exact words: “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves
where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them
The left-wing historian Richard Hofstadter ridiculed
Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation for freeing only the slaves over
which Lincoln had no power.
Lincoln’s purpose was not to free slaves but to
provoke the slave rape of Southern women and murder of Southern children that
would pull the Southern troops his generals could not defeat off the front
lines and impel them home to protect their families from Lincoln’s slave
But the slaves did not revolt even though there was
no one there to conrol them but women and children. So what kind of oppression
Lincoln issued the proclamation intended to produce
a slave rebellion because he had run through countless generals, and although
the Union army in its engagements with Robert E. Lee always outnumbered the
Southerns by two or three to one, and sometimes more, the Army of Northern
Virginia did not lose a battle for the first two years of the War. If the South
had had more people, a number of Southern battle victories would have ended in
the capture of Washington and the end of the war. But the South never had the
number of soldiers sufficient to have a reserve to capitalize on its military
victories. In contrast, the North had an endless supply of immigrants from
Ireland, most of whom died for the American Empire.
Oppositon to the war in the North was high. Lincoln
had to arrest and imprison 300 northern newspaper owners and editors and exile
a US Congressman.
Slavery was an inherited institution, not a Southern
construct. Slavery would have gradually disappeared as immigrants into the
South begin forming a work force and the over-cultivated plantation lands begin
losing their fertility. Slavery existed as long as it did because new
immigrants, instead of becoming a local work force, moved west, occupied Indian
land and became independent farmers.
Of course, the abolitionist created all the hatred
of the South that they possibly could. Indeed, during my entire life, lived
almost exclusively outside the South, I have observed the liberals foment
racial hatred of blacks toward whites, and I have watched feminists foment
gender hatred of women toward men. Hatred is the great cause of the liberals.
It is what defines them.
The stupid liberals have sowed social enmity between
races and genders. The destruction of America will be the result.
Perhaps we will fall apart, occupied in racial and
gender warfare, before the Russians and Chinese have to blow us off the face of